Elsevier

American Journal of Otolaryngology

Volume 40, Issue 2, March–April 2019, Pages 147-151
American Journal of Otolaryngology

Anesthetic management for medialization laryngoplasty using concurrent infusions of dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, and propofol versus controls

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2019.01.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Purpose

Medialization laryngoplasty (ML) ± arytenoid adduction (AA) surgery poses a unique anesthetic challenge that requires periods of deep sedation and patient cooperation with phonation to assess voice function. The purpose of this study was to assess if the protocolized administration of dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, and propofol (DRP) is associated with reduced procedural duration and administration of other sedating medications.

Materials and methods

This was a retrospective 2:1 case matched study design; matched on age, sex, body mass index, AA, and surgical revision status. Data was obtained from the electronic medical record of a tertiary referral center. Cases underwent ML ± AA using DRP. Control subjects underwent surgery ML ± AA without DRP.

Results

58 DRP cases (43.1% AA) were matched with 116 control patients (44.8% AA). DRP was associated with decreases in fentanyl dose (50 [25, 100] vs. 100 [50, 150] mcg; p < 0.01), incidence and dose of midazolam (4 [6.9%] vs. 70 [60.3%]; p < 0.01; 1 [1, 1] vs. 2 [2, 2]; p < 0.02), operative duration (131 ± 33 vs. 160 ± 50 min; p < 0.01), and anesthetic duration (182 ± 35 vs. 219 ± 60.3 min; p < 0.01). When adjusted for timeline, it was observed that case duration was declining prior to DRP introduction; this trend persisted after DRP introduction. Hypopnea was more common with DRP (14 [24.1%] vs. 7 [6.0%]; p < 0.01).

Conclusions

DRP was associated with a substantial decrease in opioid and benzodiazepine administration. A reduction in procedural duration over time was also observed.

Introduction

Medialization laryngoplasty (ML) is an operation for voice reconstruction performed for correction of unilateral vocal cord paralysis. The operative goal of ML is to move the edge of the paralyzed vocal fold closer to midline, which allows closure of the glottis during phonation. In some cases, a larger posterior glottal gap is present that requires arytenoid adduction (AA). ML is unique in that it requires intraoperative voice monitoring where the patient needs to phonate during the procedure [1]. Historically, ML was performed under local anesthesia, which was sometimes uncomfortable for the patient and technically difficult for the otolaryngologist due to coughing and laryngeal movement [2]. Sedation using a variety of monitored anesthetic care techniques can improve patient tolerance during ML [[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]], but a successful procedure requires the patient to maintain spontaneous breathing despite periods of deep sedation followed by periods of rapid emergence in order to phonate.

An anesthetic technique which uses a combination of dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, and propofol (DRP) for sedation has recently been described in a case series for ML [6]. This novel anesthetic combination offers several theoretical advantages owing to the pharmacology and clinical effects of these agents. Dexmedetomidine is a central alpha-2 agonist with anxiolytic, analgesic, and sedative effects which mimic normal sleep cycles. Importantly, dexmedetomidine is not known to induce respiratory depression [7,8]. Remifentanil is a potent ultra-short acting synthetic opioid with a blood brain equilibrium half-life of 12 min and a context-sensitive halftime of 3 to 8 min, thus is easily titratable. It is eliminated rapidly by nonspecific esterases; therefore, there is no accumulation in the setting of renal or hepatic dysfunction. Propofol is a gamma-aminobutyric acid agonist and is one of the most widely used anesthetic agents for sedation and general anesthesia and is generally well tolerated at low doses [9]. It does not have analgesic properties. Propofol is rapidly metabolized to inactive metabolites and can be used without extensive dosing changes in patients with hepatic and renal failure, unlike many other sedation agents [9,10]. Using DRP together has potential advantages, including antiemetic effects, short acting titratable analgesia, improved pharyngeal muscle relaxation, and the ability to deeply sedate the patient while allowing for rapid titration to an awake state for phonation owing to the drugs' short half-lives.

Successful anesthetic management using combinations of these medications have been described for other procedures. For cystoscopy, co-administration of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil has been reported to result in optimization of analgesia, onset of appropriate level of sedation, speed of emergence and surgeon satisfaction [8]. Arpaci et al. compared the co-administration of dexmedetomidine/remifentanil to midazolam/remifentanil and found that the dexmedetomidine/remifentanil combination produced faster onset of targeted level of sedation, faster recovery times, and less postoperative cognitive dysfunction [7]. Kim et al. assessed the efficacy of dexmedetomidine/remifentanil compared to propofol/remifentanil in patients undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection and found that propofol produced a more profound decrease in pharyngeal muscle tone and pharyngeal reflex compared to dexmedetomidine [10].

Our practice has developed a protocol using DRP sedation which has been accepted for publication as a case series of 75 patients [6]. To support this practice change, we performed a retrospective case controlled study to assess if DRP is associated with improvements in procedural time or reduction in the use of other sedating medications. Our hypothesis is that this technique is superior for ML ± AA compared to our traditional anesthetic management.

Section snippets

Methods

This study was approved by the Mayo Clinic, Rochester MN, Institutional Review Board (protocol number 16-002294, approved on 4/18/2016, handled by Ellen Olson). Consistent with Minnesota Statute 144.295, all patients in this study provided prior authorization for research use of their medical records.

Results

During the study time frame, 58 cases of patients who underwent ML ± AA utilizing DRP were identified. These patients were matched with 116 control patients who underwent ML with traditional anesthetic management. Patient characteristics are presented in Table 1. Table 2 compares the administration of different anesthetic agents between cases and controls. There was a reduction in the use of other sedating medications with DRP.

DRP was associated with a decrease in anesthetic and surgical time

Discussion

The main finding in this study is that a novel DRP anesthetic for sedation with ML procedures was associated with a meaningful reduction in anesthetic and surgical durations. In addition, the DRP anesthetic allowed less additional sedating medications (fentanyl and midazolam) to be administered in the perioperative period. Subjectively, it was the perception of the surgical team that DRP sedation provided superior titratability and assessment of phonation with improved surgeon and patient

Conclusions

The novel monitored anesthetic care technique using a combination of dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, and propofol for outpatient ML ± AA was associated with decreased surgical and anesthetic durations and a statistically significant reduction of supplemental midazolam and fentanyl use. However, increased rates of hypopnea associated with DRP need to be recognized and the perioperative team must be prepared to manage this complication if using this technique.

References (20)

  • E.P. Tagge et al.

    Improving operating room efficiency in academic children's hospital using Lean Six Sigma methodology

    J Pediatr Surg

    (2017)
  • T.G. Seelhammer et al.

    The use of flumazenil for benzodiazepine associated respiratory depression in postanesthesia recovery: risks and outcomes

    Rev Bras Anestesiol

    (2018)
  • L.R. Andrade et al.

    Sedation using dexmedetomidine and remifentanil with local anesthesia for intraoperative speech monitoring: a case report

    Rev Bras Anestesiol

    (2018)
  • A. Kukida et al.

    Dexmedetomidine is useful for sedation during laryngoplasty with voice monitoring

    Masui

    (2014)
  • E.B. Rosero et al.

    A sequential anesthesia technique for surgical repair of unilateral vocal fold paralysis

    J Anesth

    (2016)
  • C.K. Saadeh et al.

    Reducing sedation time for thyroplasty with arytenoid adduction with sequential anesthetic technique

    Laryngoscope

    (2017)
  • N.W. Stow et al.

    Novel approach of medialization thyroplasty with arytenoid adduction performed under general anesthesia with a laryngeal mask

    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

    (2012)
  • M.C. Hamre et al.

    Anesthetic management for medialization laryngoplasty performed under concurrent dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, and propofol infusions

    J Voice

    (2019)
  • A.H. Arpaci et al.

    Comparison of sedation effectiveness of remifentanil-dexmedetomidine and remifentanil-midazolam combinations and their effects on postoperative cognitive functions in cystoscopies: a randomized clinical trial

    J Res Med Sci

    (2013)
  • B. Heo et al.

    Optimal effect-site concentration of remifentanil when combined with dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing cystoscopy

    Korean J Anesthesiol

    (2014)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (4)

The authors have no competing interests to disclose.

View full text